About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 10, Cal 10, Us 8, Metcalf 7, Harper 5, California 3, Etc. 3, Honda 3, Kim 3, Transbay 2, Lloyd 2, John Gibner 1, Avalos 1, Sarah Galatty 1, Adina Leven 1, Galati 1, Deucshbank 1, Bidsink 1, Scott Wiener 1, Nicholas 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 22, 2012
    7:00 - 7:30pm PST  

7:00pm
but again, this has not... the owners of these properties need to have a chance for a say. the vent structures we want to make sha clear and because they are above ground structure and they vent smoke. they may never vent smoke. we may never have a train fire. i prefer that to be the case. but certainly a lot of transit projects and other cities have had problems with vent structures and people, and we have done our best to provide some preliminary designs which we think will get rid of those concerns. >> those are good examples. i was just curious, thank you. >> director metcalf? >> i am really glad that we are talking about the extension of the cal train i am hope thating we spend more time as a board on this. i have no concerns whatsoever about ecom or the price. i am concerned about the scope
7:01pm
of what is in this and what i know from talking to other people in the community is that the various partners that will be necessary to connect cal train to the transbay terminal do not agree about the alignment. the san francisco mayor's office and i am the mayor's appointee to this board does not agree with this alignment. i don't believe that the san francisco county transportation authority does. getting agreement between the various parties in addition to the high speed rail authority and cal train is the task ahead for us. the, i believe, i have a great concern about opening a supplemental and then locking ourselves in and then telling ourselves that we can't reopen
7:02pm
it. i know that we have to do a supplemental eir but i don't think that we yet know what should be in it. >> i just add on that that question. because i had a related question. and so i was actually curious because i know that we are also in discussion and this is largely around how we fund, high speed rail and dtfs in the long term and that there has been conversations about kind of a much, much ambitious project that involves development and undergrounding and lots of lots of other things and i was curious as to whether that might be part of a different phase and that is why the scope of this face two was so limited? >> if i could respond to that. we were asked by the federal rail administration as a continue of the 400 million that they allocated to us that they extend the platforms and
7:03pm
the radii. we applied to the federal transit administration for a grant specifically to do that and that is all we were... the money we were given was to do just the specific work that the fra asked us to do as a condition of the 400 million. so we cannot add more to the scope because there is only, so much money. because that is the first point, the second point is that to my knowledge, cal train and high speed rail are supportive of our alignment and the work that we are doing as art lloyd can attest to. we can certainly have a discussion director. but at this point, we have a cleared environmental document. and we are in the new starts pipeline. we have got only so much time, to get the funding that we need in order to start construction under the new start schedule and we are proceeding along the cleared environmental document that we have and we are do what the fra asked us under this very specific scope of the
7:04pm
money that they granted us so we can't add to the scope that does not preclude doing what you indicated about reopening things but we were given a grant to specifically comply with what fra asked us to do and that is what we are doing. >> which of the various things that you proposed that could be part of the scope, which are the ones that the fra requires the gpa to do. >> the increasing of the radii at the structure and the lengthening of the platforms. >> yes, and the fta, who in fact, funded this required us to put the vent structures in because of the programs that they have had on other projects. >> and >> yeah. i would very much endorse what the director said. we are not ruling out what might happen separately to the
7:05pm
downtown extension. what the discussions that i have had with the city have not been to realign downtown extension, it is what to do with the yard and four and this what for do with the approaching for the south, which was never thought of dtx or any extension. we were extending from the existing station, to downtown. >> right. >> and that really does not take on the responsibility for the south. >> right. >> and we would put them as partners. >> thank you. >> director lloyd wanted to comment as well. >> thank you. >> just a comment that we at cal train are moving forward with the electricitifiation and so we are moving forward and we are going to move forward regardless on what happens on the high speed rail. we are working with them to
7:06pm
possibly not do additional track work other than separations other than grade separations which i believe in holely as one of the big things to get down. but that is our procedure. we are moving forward and we will cooperate completely with your staff. and also installing the old coast daylight and i am on the board that and and that is moving forward and we will be getting close to getting that done. so that we will have a direct train service from san francisco and los angeles. >> and i can accommodate the director, we work to make sure that that happens. >> there are any other questions or questions specifically to this item? >> director metcalf. >> in the long run i do not think that it is clear if the
7:07pm
fourth and king cal train station will remain a station or if there will be other alignments that we all end up believing would be preferred. i think that we need to be undertaking a process, with all of the partners. that will be necessary to pay for and get this project completed. and try to see if we can come up with an alignment and a design that everybody can agree to. i have concerns about spending money on ir that has a likelihood of having to be redone. i know in the scope of the project, a million dollars may not be that much. but there is... i wonder about the wisdom of proceeding. >> four and this king will be... will stay as a station. however, maybe not all trains will stop there. because, and that whole mission bay area is very important to
7:08pm
the cal train right now and as far as the yard, only looking at it as someone who has been in the business all of his life. we will have to have some storage. because you are not going to have storage done on the transbay terminal. >> the trains during the rush hour, especially may have to dead head back and be stored at fourth and king. i don't know the answer, i will find out. >> and director, we have to as a condition, of the 400 million dollars that fra gave us do this supplemental work. >> correct. >> we have to do it otherwise you are saying fra take the $400 million back. >> and that is part of our... i agree. >> so, what i am hearing though, is that this is something that we do have to move forward with, regardless. but we do want to have a larger conversation, because we do know regionally that there are conversations about dtx and cal train and what that also mean for the fourth and king rail yard as well as the 280 and a
7:09pm
number of other kind of larger more complex issues around kind of the full, kind of development. and director metcalf i am hearing that you are concerned that maybe some of the scope of that work should be included in this extension as well. >> i think that it would have been potentially more efficient for us to do it that way. if i may just make a concluding comment >> sure. >> i will vote for this with the strong expression that i would like us to begin a multistake holder process to try to resolve the questions about phase two, in a way that all of the major funding parties, can be on the same page. >> and so, maybe potentially, in december, january and we can agendaize something on the calendar to have a broader discussion and i think that outside meetings will need to take place in between them. >> yeah, it is my understanding the mayor's office is julianne
7:10pm
is leading that effort already. >> yeah, she is. >> okay. >> i move authorization. >> we do have a motion. we have a motion and a second. but we have public comment on this item. >> we have a member of the public adina leven who would like to provide comments to you on this item. >> good morning, directors i am with friends of cal train and so, we are a community advocacy group with a goal to have stable funding and successful modernation of cal train and we were very glad to cecal train moderization be funded via the high speed rail project. we are looking to see the trains arrive to transbay, as soon as possible. and we are happy to see the blended system move forward as
7:11pm
something that has the best balance of costs appropriate, capacity, and meeting the needs of the corridor. so, that said, in terms of the environmental work going forward one of the things that observers have noticed, is that the old plan for transbay, there are some significant miss matches between that plan and the actual capacity of the blended system and also, the value to san francisco and to riders and cal train. so for example, the approximately half of the trains according to the old plan would turn around at fourth and king. and in terms of rider ship and capacities and the needs of san francisco the revenue for cal train having as many trains as possible go into san francisco would be the ideal thing to have happen.
7:12pm
and there are also are questions also regarding the alignment and whether the current alignment is actually the most cost effective and the layout of the stations is there any room for improvement in terms of number of riders and the effectiveness of that line in the long term. so i am very glad to hear director metcalf raise these issues and you know we certainly, strongly encourage in either this project segment or subsequent project segments to address the miss match between the current older plan and the needs of the blended system and the long term ridership and revenue goals of cal train and the city of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> all right. seeing none. we do have a motion and a
7:13pm
second. >> can we take a roll call on this item. >> director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd? >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> that is four ayes and item nine is approved. >> thank you. and we will look off the schedule for a broader discussion on dts and cal train at future board meetings in the next couple of months. item number ten. >> approving the arise participation level of 8.3 percent for years, 2010 to 11 to 12 to 13. and we did get in the informational presentation at our board meeting, i believe in september or october. so, if you could just give an update since then. >> right >> and the director sarah galatty will report on this. >> i thought that i would give a little bit of background since director was not here in september. i have to leave in two minutes
7:14pm
any way. >> well the brief update is that we did put the revised goal of 8.5 percent out for public comment. we also had a small and disadvantaged business roundtable at our offices and got a lot of good suggestions but no comments that would lead us to revise the goal so we are recommending approval of 8.5 percent for the remainder of the fiscal years. >> i am curious about the feedback that we got that was helpful, i think that this is a goal that all of the directors share in terms of increasing minority in small business participation. >> yeah, the roundtable that we have, we have represented from asian american architects and hispanic chamber of commerce, california small business association, etc., etc., several woman's groups as well. most of the feedback had to do with out reach, we are to really get word out about contract opportunities that these small businesses are
7:15pm
looking at. and places like bidsink making sure that our website is easy to navigate and that we are sending out notices which we do. they also had some feedback on matching up the goal setting process that you go through, a process of matching the industrial classification codes and looking at the dbes available in those areas and they have suggestions on which codes to use that would capture the smaller businesses than just the big urses and etc.. >> i appreciate that. what the out reach has done. >> thank you. >> is there any other discussion or questions? >> seeing none, any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> do we have a motion for this item? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and a second? >> second. >> and roll call. >> thank you, with that director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> chair kim. >> aye. >> that is four aye and item
7:16pm
ten is approved. >> item number eleven. >> approval of the minutes of the october 11th 2012 meeting. >> i know that director harper will abstain from this vote. can we take a roll call on the minutes for october the eleventh, 2012 >> yes, members of the public anything that they wanted to address you? >> director harper? >> do we have a motion to move this forward. >> moved, second. >> my apologies. >> with that, director harper, abstaining lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> that is three, ayes and item eleven is approved. >> item number 12. >> is the areview of on 007, for california code. >> and galati will crpt on this item. >> directors this is required by the california government code as well as the investment
7:17pm
policy be reviewed annually even if we are not proposing any changes. we are not proposing any changes at this time. objectivities of our investment policy remain the same, safety, liquidity and return on investment has a much lower priority. we currently keep most of our cash in a u.s. bank checking akoupt. we obviously do not keep a high cash balance it goes in from the funders and goes out to the contractors. and we do have a trustee account with deucshbank. most of which will be in trescy notes that will come to end of the year. and we will look at investment options at that time. but looking at the economic out look and what we think that interest rates may do in the future as well as cash flow needs we probably will choose investments with short maturities so we can month forward. i am happy to answer any questions. >> any questions? >> seeing none, thank you.
7:18pm
>> is there any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> okay. >> do you have a motion on item number 12. >> it is informational. >> i am sorry. >> at this time, we are done with our special calendars. so i will take a motion to convene and to closed session, is there a motion to do that. >> so moved. second. >> so we will at this time. convene into closed session. so we do ask the members of the public to please exit the room. >> and no members of the public did indicate that they did want to address you on the item. >> my apologies about that. >> if there are any members of the public that want to address the board of directors on this
7:19pm
>> we have that motion that we can do that without opposition. madam clerk, do we have any other announcement? seeing none. the meeting is adjourned. thank you.
7:20pm
>> good afternoon and welcome to the rules committee, thursday november 15. i'm joined today by our newest member, and supervisor scott wiener. would like to acknowledge the staff of sf tv the record each meeting. are there any announcement? >> please put cell phones and electronic devices in silence. documents included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk.
7:21pm
acts acted upon will appear on the december 4 supervisors agenda. >> motion 1, -- >> i do see mr. -- in the room. this is the same as we will host for all of our appointments. if you could come up and speak briefly. give us a few minutes about your background as it relates to this appointment position, and also what you may be interested in pursuing. some of your areas of interest. the board of appeals is a little bit different. >> thank you supervisor kim. good afternoon. supervisor avalos. thank you for considering my nomination. it is a great honor to be
7:22pm
nominated to the board of appeals by our mayor. i have attended -- junior high, washington high school, san francisco city college and ending up at the academy of art university. as a child i remember how exciting it was to ride bart it was first completed and they a nickel to ride a bus. my son nicholas, 23, my daughter mia, 10, because of my professional background i am well-suited to serve the san francisco community and to help you seek consensus. as a board member i would hear every case with an open heart. during my 15 years as a small business owner in the sunset
7:23pm
district i have always listened to clients, neighbors and fellow business owners. with that knowledge i believe i have a better understanding after the responsibilities of business owners not only to their patrons but the neighborhood in the community. because of the many relationships are forged over those years in small business it was an easy transition to real estate. most of all i am most proud of the fact that after several hundred transactions of not been a party of any mediation, arbitration or litigation. i feel that because of a professional experience as a realtor for over 40 years i will bring a different perspective and add value to the board. i have an understanding of the perspective of the tenant, landlord, homeowner; i've
7:24pm
heard many stories that the fence blew down in my yard, the tree hangs over my house, nonconforming in-laws, notice of violations, abatements, etc. these are issues that i am familiar with and have ample experience in with. i have been the trusted advisor and the go to guy to most of my clients, friends and family. i worked diligently with parties that have differing opinions and objectives and strive to reach a common goal. i think that has always been my mission. i understand how intimidating this process can be especially if english is not your native language. i feel that board members have an obligation to try to level the playing field. not everyone that comes to the board has the means of
7:25pm
resources to have representation on their side. i will also be aware that the board of appeals is a quasi judicial body and the positions of the final review for san franciscans. my approach as a board member is to do my due diligence, work with my fellow commissioners, at the meetings and resolve complex. my interest in serving aboard a simple: i love the city, the culture, the diversity, the architecture. i feel by being on the board it would give me the official capacity and validate what i have been doing my whole life. i am excited and honored to serve san francisco in this capacity. thank you again for your consideration regarding my appointment. >> thank you mr. honda.
7:26pm
any questions from colleagues? >> thank you for your interest in service on the board of appeals. just a question related to your being a realtor in san francisco. your plans to become forward to the board of appeals on issues on variances, permits that they might want to seek or overturn. do you see any conflict of interest? >> i had initial conversations with the city attorney's office. i believe that transparency is the best bet. anything that i am working on will be given to the board of appeals office. that way we can avoid any potential conflict of interest.
7:27pm
>> you see that those conflict of interest could arise from time to time? >> in the 30 years of business, my ethical compasses been straightforward. if there is a conflict i will be definitely the first person to come forth and to set aside and not hear that case. >> thank you. this is a question for mr. -- our deputy city attorney for the board of supervisors. has there ever been any kind of -- has there ever been a real tor serving on the board of appeals in the past? >> deputy city attorney john gibner.
7:28pm
there is no position on a realtor serving. in response to questions you are asking to mr. honda, we will work with him if he is appointed to advise him when he is required to recuse himself. the general rule is, if someone is appearing before the board or is a party appearing before the board who has been a source of income to him, basically one of his clients, who is paid him 500 dollars or from home he has received 500 dollars in commission the last 12 months he is required to recuse himself. >> i could be anyone other whether a realtor or not. >> that's right. >> any other question? >> thank you mr. honda for being willing to serve. one of the dynamics we have
7:29pm
seen around the board of appeals lately is because of the charter allows "any person" even if that person does not live in the city, and regardless to the connection to anything can appeal to the board of appeals. that delays the project a few months. there was an appeal, one person appealed the project, it happened elsewhere as well. and without commenting on specific projects that could come before you, in terms of the general policy, i think there is a case for reform in terms of how appeals go to the board of appeals, making sure there is some level of community support for an

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)